Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have expressed any view to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission about its refusal to extend the period of consultation on its draft bill of rights beyond 1 December, as urged by the Bill of Rights Consortium.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is a matter for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to determine how to conduct the consultation exercise, including the amount of time allocated for people to respond. The consultation period of 12 weeks given by the commission is consistent with Cabinet Office advice to government departments (which recommends that non-departmental public bodies should also be guided by this advice). I understand that the commission has also put back the deadline for submissions from children and young people to the end of January.

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission advised that the United Kingdom should appeal in the four European Court of Human Rights cases of 4 May, referred to collectively under the name Jordan.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has not issued any advice on whether the UK Government should appeal in those four cases.

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have asked the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to draft a strategic plan for 2002–05; and whether any new commission appointed from 1 March 2002 would be bound by any such document.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is an independent body and as such is responsible for agreeing its own work related forward planning within its legislative remit.
	The Northern Ireland Office, as sponsoring department, has a requirement to ensure that the grant aid to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is sufficient for it to carry out its legislative functions and also that the money is properly accounted for. The commission has been asked to give consideration to its budgetary requirements for the years 2003–06 to enable the Northern Ireland Office to include the commission's bid for funds within its own planning documents.

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether it is the view of the Chief Commissioner for Human Rights for Northern Ireland that it is possible to remove proposals from the commission draft document published on 4 September.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. The Chief Commissioner has been asked to write to the noble Lord. A copy of his letter will be placed in the Library.

Police Service of Northern Ireland

Lord Kilclooney: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In which countries officers of the Police Service of Northern Ireland are on duty; and whether they will consider allowing the Police Service of Northern Ireland to make or contribute to any international police presence in Afghanistan.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Officers of the Police Service of Northern Ireland are currently deployed in Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor. If the Police Service of Northern Ireland was invited to make a contribution to an international police presence in Afghanistan, the Chief Constable would consult with the Northern Ireland Policing Board and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Sex Discrimination Act: XFather Christmas" Advertisements

Lord Swinfen: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether it is legal under sex discrimination legislation to advertise for a XFather Christmas".

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Under the Sex Discrimination Act it is not unlawful to advertise a post where a person's sex is a genuine occupational qualification for the job, within certain tightly drawn limits. Therefore it is permissible to advertise for a man to play the role of Father Christmas.

International Terrorism: Review of Government Policy

Baroness Billingham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What arrangements have been made for ministerial oversight of the campaign against terrorism.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Prime Minister has established a Sub-Committee of the Defence and Overseas Policy Committee to oversee the Government's role in the international coalition against international terrorism.
	Its membership and terms of reference are as follows: Sub-Committee on International Terrorism Composition Prime Minister Deputy Prime Minister Chancellor of the Exchequer President of the Council Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Secretary of State for the Home Department Secretary of State for International Development Secretary of State for Defence
	The Chief of the Defence Staff, the Attorney-General and the heads of the intelligence agencies also attend when required. Terms of Reference XTo keep under review the Government's policy on international terrorism, in particular the political, military and humanitarian response to the attacks in the United States on 11 September and preventive security measures in the United Kingdom and overseas".
	In addition, as part of this sub-committee, the Prime Minister has established a ministerial group, chaired by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to keep under review policy on protective security.
	Its membership and terms of reference are as follows: Ministerial Group on Protective and Preventive Security Composition Secretary of State for the Home Department (in the Chair) Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions Secretary of State for Health Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Secretary of State for Defence Chief Secretary to the Treasury Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Minister of State, Home Office
	The president of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the heads of the intelligence agencies will attend as required. Terms of Reference XTo keep under review the Govenment's policy on preventive and precautionary security measures to counter the threat of terrorism in the United Kingdom and to British interests overseas; and to report to the Sub-Committee on International Terrorism as appropriate".

Adult Skills: Performance and Innovation Unit Report

Baroness Billingham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the Performance and Innovation Unit's report on workforce development will be published.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Performance and Innovation Unit's report In Demand—Adult Skills in the 21st Century is published today as a report to the Government. Copies have been placed in the House Library. Additional copies and further information can also be found on the Cabinet Office website at www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/innovation.

Decennial Census 1911

Lord Skidelsky: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will review current policy that prevents public inspection of the 1911 decennial census because censuses for England and Wales are closed for 100 years.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The information requested falls with the responsibility of the national statistician, who has been asked to reply.
	Letter to Lord Skidelsky from the executive director of the Office for National Statistics, dated 27 November 2001.
	The Registrar General for England and Wales has been asked to reply to your recent question asking whether the current policy which prevents public inspection of the 1911 decennial census because censuses for England and Wales are closed for 100 years, will be reviewed. I am replying in his absence. (HL1398)
	There are no plans to review the current policy covering public inspection of the 1911 Census records. A closure period of 100 years for census records is specified in legislation in Instrument No 12 dated 1966 made under the Public Records Act 1958. The Lord Chancellor in conjunction with the Minister of Health, who at that time was responsible for the Census, prescribed the closure period.
	Under the Public Records Act, there is provision for a record held by the Public Record Office to be inspected if special authority is given by the department responsible for the record. In 1993 it was announced in Parliament that the Registrar General would be willing to consider particular applications for information to be extracted from the 1911 returns if it would enable the applicant to establish a legal entitlement such as an inheritance.
	Such authority would be given only where the information is not available from any other source and is clearly requisite for establishing the entitlement in question. The Registrar General would wish to be fully satisfied from documentary evidence as to the identity of the applicant. Where the desired information from the Census form relates to a living person other than the applicant, that person's consent would be required before the information would be released.
	At the time of the 1911 Census, assurance was given that the contents of the Schedule would be treated as strictly confidential. To amend retrospectively the rule would jeopardise public confidence in assurances about recent and future censuses. It may put at risk public trust in other guarantees given about confidentiality.
	I appreciate that information from census returns would be of value to those people researching their family history, but maintaining the public's confidence in the protection of census information is paramount.

Quarry Products: Aggregates Tax

The Earl of Shrewsbury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What range of quarry products will be taxable under the forthcoming aggregates tax; and at what amount per tonne.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The levy will be charged at £1.60 per tonne upon sand, gravel and rock commercially exploited for use as aggregate.

Redundancies

Lord Roberts of Conwy: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Sainsbury of Turville on 8 November (WA 40), what were the comparable figures for proposed redundancies for the equivalent period in each of the last five years.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The comparable figures for proposed redundancies for the equivalent period of 6 June 2001 to 30 September 2001 in each of the last five years are:
	
		
			 Year Number of proposed redundancies 
			 1996 67,397 
			 1997 60,606 
			 1998 85,976 
			 1999 87,301 
			 2000 115,190

Miners: Respiratory Disease Claims

Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will provide a full breakdown of their costs and expenses in connection with miners' respiratory claims, since Mr Justice Turner's judgment of January 1998, particularised between administrative expenses, legal costs, departmental funding and sums paid out to the Department of Trade and Industry's two principal contractors, AON-IRISC and Healthcall.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: To date, the costs for the two schemes to solicitors and the Compensation Recovery Unit amount to £103.8 million, comprising £46.4 million in respect of respiratory disease and £57.4 million in relation to vibration white finger, VWF. The department is unable to provide figures relating to contractors' fees, as the details of these payments remain commercially confidential. The cost of administrative expenses, particularly those of the department, on this work cannot be separately identified.

Challenger 2 Tank Air Filters

Lord Vivian: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many Challenger 2 tank air filters were used during Exercise Saif Sareea II; and how many are now held in stock.

Lord Bach: Approximately 600 Challenger 2 air filters were used on Exercise Saif Sareea II. Units are however in the process of recovering their assets following the exercise, so it is not possible to be precise.
	As at 22 November, 433 air filters were held in storage depots and further stocks are being delivered on a weekly basis. Stocks are also held at unit level, although information on those holdings is not held centrally.

Education Action Zones

Baroness Blatch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will publish any evaluation there has been of education action zones.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: At the request of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) has undertaken an ongoing programme of inspection to evaluate the effectiveness of individual education action zones and to routinely publish the results of their findings. To date Ofsted has published 14 reports on individual education action zones and has, in addition, published a commentary on the first six education action zones that it inspected. The reports are published on the Ofsted website www.ofsted.gov.uk
	The Department for Education and Skills has this year published an annual report on education action zones. This report documents and evaluates the progress of the education action zone programme to date. I am placing a copy in the Library of the House.

Education Action Zones

Baroness Blatch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Who was consulted and over what period about the abolition of education action zones.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Education action zones (EAZs) are not being abolished. All EAZs will complete their agreed full statutory term. Under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, EAZs were established for a maximum statutory term of five years. Our announcement on 14 November proposes that, wherever possible, we aim to continue to support ex-EAZ schools through our Excellence in Cities initiative, following the end of the zones' statutory term.
	Officials from the Department for Education and Skills are holding discussions with each EAZ on the future of their schools, with a view to developing firm proposals well before the end of its statutory term.

Special Educational Needs: Collection of Data

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any plans to conduct an annual schools census in England and Wales requiring enumeration of the numbers of pupils with autism and other conditions giving rise to special educational needs as with the Scottish schools census.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Provisions now consolidated in the Education Act 1996 require schools to submit information on numbers of pupils with special educational needs. There is currently no requirement for schools to submit information in the annual schools census on the nature of such pupils' disability or learning difficulty.
	The department established an SEN Data Strategy Group which, earlier this year, recommended a number of improvements to the collection of data on pupils with SEN. We are now considering how best these recommendations could be implemented, including developing appropriate data collection software and taking the views of schools and LEAs.
	In June this year, the department carried out a pilot study involving a sample of 200 mainstream and special schools to assess whether it would be possible to collect data from schools on a broad range of types of SEN. We are now considering introducing a requirement for schools and LEAs to provide this information from 2003–04, and this is likely to include data on pupils categorised as having an autistic spectrum disorder.

Benefit Fraud Inspectorate Report: Hastings Borough Council

Lord Hughes of Woodside: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they expect to publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Hastings Borough Council.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report was published today in respect of Hastings Borough Council and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.
	Inspectors found that the council is working towards the verification framework but needs to improve consistency in gathering evidence before they will be able to implement the framework effectively. The report also noted that Hastings Borough Council did not consistently comply with the requirement to confirm national insurance numbers and the linked identity of claimants.
	The council's efforts to ensure that only valid claims enter the system are hampered by a claim form that does not meet the standards of the BFI model form.
	The report notes that before the inspection took place the council implemented major organisational changes. The benefits section introduced new procedures and initiatives that should bring improvements, but insufficient staff resources meant that the gains have yet to be fully realised.
	Inspectors report that the council pays 90 per cent of rent allowance claims to landlords direct. The council recognises the benefits of maintaining close liaison with landlords, supported by clear procedures for the 'fit and proper person' test. Further improvement is needed in the areas of IT security and management checks.
	The report finds that the council has effective systems for recovering housing benefit (HB) overpayments. The general lack of resource is having a major impact on the performance of the Benefits Investigation Service causing a shortfall against the weekly benefit saving threshold. Internal Audit's provision of a robust and effective audit service gives some assurance as to the security of the benefits system.
	The report makes recommendations to help the council to address weaknesses and to improve the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit; as well as counter fraud activities.
	My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

Convicted Prisoners: Disfranchisement

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they accept the recommendation by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in its concluding observations of 29 October on the Fifth Periodic Report submitted by the United Kingdom, to reconsider United Kingdom law depriving convicted prisoners of the right to vote.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We have read the committee's draft recommendation and we have no plans to amend the law as it stands at present. The Divisional Court confirmed earlier this year that the disfranchisement of convicted prisoners is both legitimate and proportional in its aim and that there has therefore been no breach of human rights in maintaining the current practice.

Millennium Dome: Sale

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the first call on funds from the proceeds of the sale of the Millennium Dome will be the repayment of moneys provided by English Partnerships or of moneys provided by the Millennium Commission.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In accordance with the legal agreement between English Partnerships and the New Millennium Experience Company dated 12 January 2001, the first call on the proceeds of sale of the Millennium Dome will be for costs defined in the agreement as Xallowable costs". These include various costs associated with English Partnerships's management and maintenance of the Dome, including decommissioning of the contents, and other categories of costs payable by English Partnerships. In addition, Xallowable costs" includes all legal costs, fees and expenses reasonably and properly incurred by either English Partnerships or the company to enable a sale to be achieved: the bulk of these costs have been incurred to date by English Partnerships.

Millennium Dome: Sale

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the net sum, after expenses of sale, raised from the sale of the contents of the Millennium Dome; and how this sum has been used.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The net sum raised so far from the sale of assets by the New Millennium Experience Company is £3.7 million. The sum has been used to defray the New Millennium Experience Company's wind-down costs, reducing the net amount of grant needed from the Millennium Commission.

New Millennium Experience Company and English Partnerships: Legal Liability for Debts

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have legal liability for any debts of the New Millennium Experience Company and English Partnerships respectively.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The New Millennium Experience Company is a limited company and the Government have no direct legal obligation to meet its liabilities.
	English Partnerships is made up of two bodies, the Urban Regeneration Agency and the Commission for New Towns. As NDPBs, they stand at arms' length from the Government, operating under their own statute. Legal liability for the commitments they incur therefore lies with them. However, the Government provide them with the necessary resources to carry out an agreed programme and operate a control regime aimed at preventing the bodies creating obligations they cannot fulfil.

Greenwich Millennium Village

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the expenditure of public funds to date on the Millennium Village at Greenwich, together with a breakdown of the main source of such funds.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The Greenwich Millennium Village is being developed by the private sector with no contribution from public funds, up to now. English Partnerships, the Government's regeneration agency, has facilitated the remediation, servicing and landscaping for the area of the Millennium Village as part of its wider regeneration programme of the whole of the Greenwich Peninsula. In addition, English Partnerships has developed the Millennium School and Health Centre at a cost of £11.6 million, including fees. These facilities are to serve the Millennium Village, but also the far wider community, both on and off the Greenwich Peninsula.

Insecticides

The Countess of Mar: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When waxed fly strips containing Dichlorvos were first marketed under the trade name XVapona"; whether a licence was required; and what toxicity tests were the manufacturers required to conduct.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Resin strips impregnated with Dichlorvos have been marketed under the trade name XVapona" since the 1960s. A Xlicence" as such was not required at that time to allow manufacturers to place such products on the market. However the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme (PSPS) which operated on a voluntary basis Xcleared" products for safe use, subject to labelling and any other conditions set by government departments. PSPS was operated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with the HSE becoming involved about 1975.
	To help manufacturers, guidance was published on the toxicity tests needed to help advisers make recommendations for the safe use of pesticides. The following information was published in XThe Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme agreed between Government Departments and Industry (1975)" Toxicity data guide:
	Acute toxicity studies
	Cumulative toxicity studies
	Chronic toxicity studies, (including carcinogenicity tests if required).
	Neurotoxicity tests for organophosphorous compounds
	Metabolic studies
	Potentiation tests for organophosphorous compounds It should be noted that the trade name XVapona" covers a range of pesticide products.

Insecticides

The Countess of Mar: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When aerosol insect sprays for use in domestic situations in which the active ingredients were organophosphates were first introduced into the United Kingdom; and which were the organophosphates.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: HSE records show aerosol products containing organophosphorus compounds were on the market in the UK at least from 1975–76. At this time HSE became involved in the voluntary scheme in place to clear and register them. Before then, such products were the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF—now DEFRA). The organophosphorus compounds contained within these products were as follows:
	Diazinon
	Dichlorvos
	Fenitrothion
	Iodofenphos
	Pirimiphos-Methyl.

Phenols: Health and Safety Executive Advice

The Countess of Mar: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Health and Safety Executive advice about the use of phenols has been changed recently; if so, why; and to whom the advice has been communicated.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: On 22 September 2001, the Health and Safety Commission approved a maximum exposure limit (MEL) for phenol. This will come into effect on 31 December 2001, when it will be published in Health and Safety Executive (HSE) guidance note EH40/2002, Occupational Exposure Limits. Employers must control exposure of employees by inhalation to any substance with a MEL as far as is reasonably practicable, and in any event below the limit. This new limit replaces former occupational exposure standards that had higher values and less stringent control duties, and reflects the latest scientific appraisal of the health effects of phenol. The new limit has been announced in an HSE press notice, and the intention to introduce it was subject to consultation in 2001.

Mox Development: Consideration of Security Implications

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the security implications of proceeding with the Mox development at Sellafield were last considered; and what was the outcome of that consideration.

Lord Whitty: My right honourable friends the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Health decided on 3 October that Mox manufacture is justified in accordance with the requirements of Article 6(1) of Directive 96/29/Euratom. This directive, commonly referred to as the XBasic Safety Standards Directive", requires in Article 6(1) that all new classes or types of practice resulting in exposure to ionising radiation are justified in advance of being first adopted or first approved by their economic, social or other benefits in relation to the health detriment they may cause. My right honourable friends took account of all relevant issues up to 3 October, including security considerations. A copy of their decision is in the Library, including a summary of some of the main considerations taken into account. Paragraphs 67–69 of the decision document and paragraphs 25–33 of Annex 1 describe these issues in detail. The Secretaries of State sought the advice of agencies responsible for safety and security issues, including the Office for Civil Nuclear Security which, as the decision document makes clear, took account of the terrorist attacks on 11 September.

Meat Imports

Lord Vinson: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What quantity of meat products have been imported into the United Kingdom from countries that have endemic foot and mouth disease over the last twelve months.

Lord Whitty: European Community legislation permits the importation of meat from certain countries where foot and mouth disease is present but only where the disease is restricted to specific areas. Imports are permitted either from parts of the country that are free of disease or under strict conditions that ensure the meat does not come from any animal that may have come in contact with foot and mouth disease before, during or after slaughter.
	All meat imported from third countries must be accompanied by veterinary certification. This must confirm that the meat is derived from animals which have been subjected to a veterinary inspection during the 24 hours prior to slaughter and showed no signs of foot and mouth disease. All meat imported into the UK from third countries must enter at designated UK border inspection posts (BIPs) where it is subject to veterninary inspections.
	The table below details UK imports of meat from foot and mouth disease susceptible species* between October 2000 and September 2001 from countries where foot and mouth disease is endemic.
	
		
			 Product Country Total (tonnes) 
			 Meat of Bovine Animals** Botswana 11,296 
			  Brazil 81,665 
			  Namibia 8,020 
			  South Africa 354 
			  Swaziland 125 
			  Zimbabwe 6,879 
			 Meat of Bovine Animals, Fresh or Chilled Total 108,339 
		
	
	*cattle, sheep, pigs, goats and reindeer
	** There were no imports of sheepmeat, pigmeat, goatmeat or reindeer meat from the specified countries between October 2000 and September 2001.

Waterfowl: Ban on Shooting with Lead Shot

The Earl of Shrewsbury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they have monitored the ban on the shooting of waterfowl and other similar species with lead shot; and what prosecutions for infringements of the ban have been brought to date.

Lord Whitty: The legislation implementing the ban on shooting of waterfowl, and other species, using lead shot has been monitored by the Lead Shot Legislation (England) Review Group. This report to Mr Meacher earlier this year recommended proposals for changes to the schedules to the legislation. A consultation about the proposals has been conducted by my department, the results of which should be known shortly. Reports from the organisations represented on the group indicate that compliance with the legislation is high. To date there have been no prosecutions for infringements of the ban.

Waterfowl: Ban on Shooting with Lead Shot

The Earl of Shrewsbury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which bodies or organisations police the ban on the shooting of waterfowl and similar species with lead shot in order to enforce the existing legislation.

Lord Whitty: Under Section 4 of the Environmental Protection (Restriction of the Use of Lead Shot (England) Regulations 1999 any person who appears suitable to the Secretary of State may be authorised in writing to undertake enforcement. At the current time only the police are authorised to undertake this function.